MUNNA GIFT CENTRE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 129/2001, dated 25 -7 -2001. The appellant had imported 96 pieces of air -conditioners from Dubai and declared it as US $ 150 CIF. The DRI examined the goods and found them to be made in Thailand. They questioned the partner of the appellant and recorded the statement. The partner of the appellant in order to seek the clearance of the goods agreed for enhancement of the goods at US $ 325 per piece. The DRI on enquiries found that M/s. ETA General Pvt. Ltd., Chennai in collaboration with M/s. Fujitsu General, Japan had sent a price list of O General Air Conditioners effective from 4 -6 -2000 as 1400 Dirhams per piece Ex -Dubai which works out to US $ 380 per piece. On the basis of this evidence, the Department issued show cause notice to enhance the value of the imported O General Air Conditioners from the declared value of US $ 150 CIF to US $ 380. The Commissioner has in the impugned order rejected the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Act and has proceeded to value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. He has also ordered for confiscation of the 96 pieces of O General Air Conditioners and imposed fine of Rs. 5 lakhs besides Rs. 2 lakhs on the partner of the appellant. He has ordered for appropriation of the amounts paid and enforcement of Bank guarantee.

(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved with the impugned order and contend that there is no contemporaneous import of the said imported goods at US $ 380 to enhance the value. It is submitted that the goods were made in Thailand and purchased from Dubai. The compared price, even otherwise is from M/s Fujitsu General, Japan and the goods are not same and not imported from same place at same time for enhancement of the value. It is stated that merely because the appellant had agreed initially to the enhancement of the value for the purpose of clearance, that cannot be held against him to raise further to US $ 380 from his admission to US $ 325 per piece. In this regard, they rely on the following judgments : -

(3.) LD . JCDR submitted that the appellant had admitted for enhancement of the value and therefore the Department can on such admission enhance the value of the goods. She submitted that in the case of CC, Bombay v. Shibani Engg. Systems [1996 (86) E.L.T. 453 (S.C.)], the Apex Court upheld the order of the Collector rejecting transaction value of the goods plainly on the ground that it was totally unrealistic value. Therefore, the Department have not enhanced the value on mere basis of imports made by the Japan company. She further relied on the judgment in the case of Pan Asia Enterprises v. CC, Bombay [1995 (79) E.L.T. 322] wherein the quotation of identical goods of same specification produced in same country of origin by same manufacturer was found to be higher and therefore the transaction value was rejected and the invoice value was accepted. She further relied on the judgment rendered in the case of P.K. Himatsingka and Co. v. CC, New Delhi [1996 (81) E.L.T. 350] wherein there was evidence of comparable price of identical goods supplied to another firm relied by the Department and hence the transaction value was rejected.